Price of war

[iain]

The current estimates of the cost of the war to the US seem to be around $100 billion. According to Drooper in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16243) the total amount Americans have "in the bank" is about $9 trillion (i.e. $9 thousand billion).

This means that the war will cost Americans about 1% of their total savings, as a nation.

That's quite a lot of money.

For example, if it turns out that Iraq posed no real threat to the US or the west (as may well be the case, regardless of whether WMDs are found), will this have been the most effective way to spend $100 billion to achieve peace, stability and humantarian goals in the middle east, or in the world at large.

(Its not my money so its really none of my business, but I am interested in people's opinions).

[Tmy]

Hmmm using my govt estimate to real estimate conversion chart $100 billion becomes $180 billion in costs.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by iain
The current estimates of the cost of the war to the US seem to be around $100 billion. According to Drooper in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16243) the total amount Americans have "in the bank" is about $9 trillion (i.e. $9 thousand billion).

This means that the war will cost Americans about 1% of their total savings, as a nation.

That's quite a lot of money.

For example, if it turns out that Iraq posed no real threat to the US or the west (as may well be the case, regardless of whether WMDs are found), will this have been the most effective way to spend $100 billion to achieve peace, stability and humantarian goals in the middle east, or in the world at large.

(Its not my money so its really none of my business, but I am interested in people's opinions).

Just to correct Iain (spelling and capitalised proper noun!!!! ;) ).

The $9 trillion represents money in banks, not savings, nor wealth.

Try this instead. Annual GDP is just over $10 trillion. So the war as budgeted in your source would be about 1% of annual income. So imagine a special 1% tax surcharge placed on all wages, salaries, profits, interest payments, divdends etc. this year.

[iain]

Originally posted by Drooper
Just to correct Iain (spelling and capitalised proper noun!!!! ;) Now how could I object to a correction like that. Two i's, capital letters, everything a man could want. :D

[Crossbow]

Assuming that all goes reasonably well, then I would say tha $100 billion (USD) is a fair estimate for the direct costs of this war.

However, there are numerous indirect costs as well, so if one were to take those into account, then the $100 billion would just be modest down-payment.

[kourama]

Well, the prez is petitioning for an additional $75 bil.

If I am correct in my suspicion that this war is about securing control over oil resources, then there will be a net gain, even if the war costs many billions of dollars. Unfortunately, since wage taxes will never let up, John and Jane Q Public will foot the bill and the oil companies will reap the rewards.

Just a comment on peace: there will only ever be peace on earth when every living thing on this planet is dead. War is a fact of life IMO.

[Segnosaur]

The war will be expensive, and unlike the previous gulf war, most of the costs will be paid by the US.

However, there are a couple of offsetting factors:
- Changing the Iraqi government will allow sanctions to be lifted, and Iraq can start selling more oil. This should reduce world prices, and give a boost to the world's (and the US) economy
- If things go as planned, global terrorism will be reduced. (Yes, I know there is no firm evidence linking Iraq with 9/11; however they do support other terrorist groups)
- A democratic Iraq will likely have a better economy than Iraq under dictatorship. Thus, Iraq trades more with its neighbours, providing more economic stimulous
- Many of the 'costs' of the war involve spending money in the U.S. While I don't believe that government spending is the best way to stimulate the economy, much of their spending will be on things like replacements for the weapons they used, materials needed for reconstructing Iraq, etc. This will at least provide some jobs.

So, even though the cost is great, it will be at least partially offset by other factors.

[iain]

But the question no one has answered is whether it is the most effective way to spend that money.

I believe that the amount of money the US has put into the reconstruction of Afghanistan is under $1 billion. Still a huge amount of money but almost certainly less than 1% of what this war will cost.

So, my question is whether there are more effective ways to spend $100-200 billion which would have done more to improve America's economy, protect the US against terrorism and reduce poverty, hunger and disease in the developing world?

[LuxFerum]

if Bush had given 1 billion to saddam leave the iraqi, this war would´t exist.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
if Bush had given 1 billion to saddam leave the iraqi, this war would´t exist.

I don't think that would have worked.

As the 'leader' of Iraq, Saddam basically owns the entire place. He himself probably has millions if not billions in assets in place, and what he doen't own outright himself, he can control and use as he wants.

Secondly, leading the country gives him non-monetary benefits... The 'thrill' of being in charge, letting his sons run their little torture squads, etc. Being a billionaire in some neutral country wouldn't provide those benefits.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
if Bush had given 1 billion to saddam leave the iraqi, this war would´t exist.

Some analysts estimate that Saddam is the fourth richest person in the world. What would he do with another $1bn?

I wonder how much we spent keeping Saddam contained for the last 12 years. I wonder how much the U.N. spent inspecting over the last 12 years, and what our share of that money was.

I wonder how much longer we could have kept it up. I wonder how much longer Saddam would have stayed in power after we quit trying to contain him. I wonder what would have become of the Kurds after that.

I wonder how seriously any other despot would have taken us after that. I wonder how much that would cost us.

[iain]

Originally posted by LukeT
I wonder how much we spent keeping Saddam contained for the last 12 years. I wonder how much the U.N. spent inspecting over the last 12 years, and what our share of that money was.I don't know, but a lot less than $100 billion I suspect.

I wonder how much longer we could have kept it up. I wonder how much longer Saddam would have stayed in power after we quit trying to contain him. I wonder what would have become of the Kurds after that.Fair point.


I wonder how seriously any other despot would have taken us after that. I wonder how much that would cost us. People on both sides of the debate use this type of argument and I'm never sure how valid it is. I don't think any two cases are ever similar enough in reality for a despot to be seriously concerned about this sort of thing. Is there any evidence that a potential despot has ever been scared off taking control and doing nasty things because he has learnt the lesson of history?